– Mohd. Naushad Khan
In a compelling and candid interview with Mohd Naushad Khan, Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar, founding member of Association for Democratic Reforms, a petitioner challenging the Election Commission’s special revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, outlined a series of serious concerns – legal, constitutional, and social. While the Supreme Court’s recent response to the petition offered partial relief, the broader implications of the exercise, if unchecked, could spell long-term damage to India’s democratic fabric.
The petitioner expressed only “partial satisfaction” with the Supreme Court’s recent hearing. While he appreciated the quality of discussion during the arguments, he noted that the final order did not fully reflect the expectations of the petitioners. However, it wasn’t a complete loss either – the Court admitted the petition and made critical suggestions to the EC, recommending the inclusion of three key documents omitted earlier.
Interestingly, the Court stopped short of issuing a directive, instead choosing to “suggest” improvements. This was seen as a gesture to preserve the institutional dignity of the EC, with the hope that the Commission would reciprocate by complying voluntarily. Whether that happens or not will likely influence the outcome of the next hearing, scheduled for July 28.
The petitioner made it clear that the concern is not with electoral roll revisions per se. He stressed that maintaining updated and clean voter rolls is essential for the health of a democracy. However, what he objects to is the manner in which the current revision is being conducted in Bihar – “haphazard,” “hurried,” and “grossly improper.”
Revisions compressed into one or two months, especially close to an election date, risk massive disenfranchisement. He warned that such rushed processes, if repeated in states like West Bengal, could result in systemic voter suppression under the guise of technical clean-up.
The gravest warning came regarding the fate of millions of migrant workers from Bihar. A draft electoral roll is to be published on August 1, with one month allowed for objections. However, many migrants from Bihar working in other states are unlikely to be able to check the draft rolls or file objections. Their names might be removed without their knowledge, only for them to return on polling day and find they no longer exist on the list.
In a scenario where 200 out of 500 regular voters in a village find themselves disenfranchised, law and order problems are inevitable. With minimal staff and police presence at polling booths, such situations could spiral into chaos. And if this repeats across hundreds of villages, the petitioner warned, “very serious social strife and social unrest” could follow.
The EC’s apparent attempt is to verify the citizenship of existing voters – something legally under the purview of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission. The petitioner emphasised that once a person is registered on the electoral roll, their citizenship is presumed – a stance affirmed by previous Supreme Court judgments.
He questioned why this presumption is now being denied, particularly to those enrolled after January 1, 2003, when even the EC’s own circular acknowledges it for earlier registrants. Asking voters to now prove their citizenship is not only legally dubious but also morally unacceptable in a democracy, he argued.
Perhaps the most glaring flaw in the EC’s process is the demand for birth certificates for verification. Data shows that only 2.8% of Biharis born between 2001 and 2005 possess one. The EC’s list of acceptable documents also contains contradictions – high school certificates, for instance, do not mention place of birth, yet the EC asks for both date and place.
Confusing language like “mother and/or father” in declarations further complicates compliance. The petitioner described this bureaucratic mess as either a product of haste or a lack of application of mind, warning that it disproportionately affects the poor, uneducated, minorities, and migrants.
If allowed to proceed nationally in this flawed manner, the revision exercise could disenfranchise between 20% and 50% of voters in affected areas – most of whom belong to what he called the “vanchit varg” (deprived sections). These citizens may lack documents, but they are politically conscious and fully aware of their right to vote.
Stripping them of this right may provoke deep anger and resistance. As he pointed out, “The right to vote is seen by many as the only right they really have.” Undermining it could trigger a backlash that institutions might not be equipped to handle.
The petitioner didn’t mince words when speaking about the EC’s credibility. Once a trusted institution, it now faces growing scepticism from the public across social and political lines. He lamented the EC’s increasing opacity – its failure to respond to citizen queries, reliance on media leaks, and refusal to issue signed clarifications.
He stressed that the EC must see itself not as a gatekeeper of voting rights but as a service provider assisting citizens in exercising their franchise. Instead, it has assumed the role of an authority granting that right – a dangerous distortion of its constitutional mandate.
The petitioner argued that the EC’s actions in Bihar are in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Act mandates the Commission to prepare and revise voter rolls, not to determine citizenship. “Do your job well, don’t try to do someone else’s job,” he said, emphasising that the EC must leave citizenship verification to the Home Ministry.
Asked how the Commission’s credibility could be restored, the petitioner pointed to a broader institutional crisis. Several constitutional and statutory bodies, not just the EC, have suffered a loss of autonomy in recent years. However, because of its direct impact on the democratic process, reforming the EC should be a priority.
He called for reforms to strengthen the EC’s transparency, accountability, and independence. Unless such measures are taken, and unless the EC reorients itself as an enabler of democracy rather than its gatekeeper, India’s electoral integrity remains at risk.
The debate over electoral roll revisions in Bihar is not just a procedural skirmish – it is a battle for the soul of Indian democracy. While the Supreme Court has kept the door open for further scrutiny, the EC must now decide whether it will act as a guardian of democracy or continue down a path that threatens its very foundation. The stakes are high, and the consequences – legal, social, and constitutional – could be far-reaching.
